Brenda 2025-03-15 12:08 a.m.Moreover, even if we were to apply strict scrutiny, the Lucas Act survives.
Indeed, the law furthers a compelling Government interest, and is narrowly tailored—in fact, tailored with almost surgical precision—to achieve that interest and nothing else.
The term "restricted employee" does not apply to the "[common] stock clerk, machinist, or elevator operator,” Mitchell, at 101, n.37 (cleaned up), but only to prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and heads and deputy heads vested with immense and various powers under law.
Allowing law enforcement officers, as in the case of Matrix_oc to run for political office all the while carrying out arrests and prosecutions—perhaps even against their own political rivals—would lead either to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Because the Lucas Act seeks to prevent that, it furthers a compelling Government interest. See Federal Election Comm'n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 210 (1982) (“The governmental interest in preventing both actual corruption and the apperance of corruption of elected representatives has long been recognized.”); see Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club Pac v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721, 754 (2011) (“Our campaign finance precedents leave no doubt: Preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is a compelling government interest.”) (KAGAN, J., dissenting)
Moreover, the Lucas Act is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest because the Act makes an exception for restricted employees so long as they file for leave of abscence during an election period. Thus, it perfectly balances the Government employee's rights, if any, with the Government's compelling interest in preserving public trust and confidence in civil government.
We respectfully request that the Court deny the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
@meowiitten(edited)